Comment deleted

Jun 5 2013:
Good point. But from my experience, A real wiki provides all information not collective ones, and they all have the same ranking, so every person can put his/her idea in there. People starts to notice and finally the truth would glow!

Comment deleted

Jun 7 2013:
Good point. The thing is, the whole idea behind putting every opinions in one place is, It's not my choice or responsibility to tell you or command you how or what to see. It's your choice. It's how you like to look.
Misinformation usually has no acceptable backgrounds or logic behind them. But i prefer to actually experiment the delicate or important information i receive if possible.

Jun 5 2013:
Most bathrooms in America are considered "open" to the public. That is you can use the bathrooms without actually getting permission to do so, as you would in Iran or Germany, etc. From my experience travelling the world, this is pretty much unique to the US.

I understand that internet access is not particularly open in Iran and that the government is designing their own internet network serve that will be open to the public so they don't have to stray in western world website. Further, I heard that everyone will have to register their websites with the government agency.

Has living in Iran given you more desire for freedom and openness in your life? How oppressive is the Iranian government? Also, how to you get around this fact and are able to access website such as TED?

"...The state blacklist consists of about 15,000 websites forbidden by the Iranian government.[3] Before subscribers can access Internet service providers, they must first promise in writing not to access "non-Islamic" sites.[12] In 2008, Iran has blocked access to more than five million Internet sites, whose content is mostly perceived as immoral and anti-social." wikipedia.

It is my understanding that Iranians are not allowed to visit the TED website.... How do you manage to not only access but become a member?

I'm not sure that TED is filtered completely, I just believe it's particularly filtered. ( hadn't checked yet). for example, You cannot access you tube, Or TEDconversation. In some ISPs maybe it's fully filtered.
In my case, to access filtered sites (basically the whole internet), I have to use Proxies and VPNs. Which are like mediums. for example, when you want go to TED, you have to first, download TED to a server in USA or UK or Canada, then download ted from that server in Iran.
It's really basic, And there are some serious moneys goes to VPN and Proxy provider's pockets.

Most Americans are not aware of the hurdles that face many Arabic and Asian individuals as they search for the truth in today's world. Some people in the US. (programmers mostly, hackers and activists) are responsible for making these holes in the network to allow people in these dark zones access to the truth. It's one of the few situations that that Governments collaborate with social, cyber, activists, or look the other way.

Some of them are members of the loosely knit organization called Anonymous. There are some rumors that Wiki Leaks provides holes for people to get the word out. Some call them cyber terrorists. To others, they are hero activists, creating portals for truth to flow into the dark regions of our world society. Your success in this dark area puts you in the same league as these heroes.

Jun 5 2013:
I agree with what you are saying. From my experience over linux and other open products, I had the privilege to know that the best protectors and producers of openness and freedom are the individuals. Not the big companies or governments. The hackers of the open world are the dark knights of our (iranians) real world.
And to answer to your concern, In these weeks iran have some serious political crisis over the next pres-edent el3cti-on (sorry for miss-spelling, It's just a little trick) which is happening in 2 weeks. So this topic won't make any trouble i guess.
I try to pull strings and push borders of talking, If you are interested, i have some related posts in my blog: Amirlifestyle.blogspot.com of course for the safety reasons i cannot say the whole truth in there, but still :)

Any how thanks for your great sympathy :) I will be honored to know your opinions on the words i've mentioned :)

May 31 2013:
'Openness' implies an exchange of dynamic information that is unconstrained and uncensored, regardless of its source.

I would define 'free' as a condition in which individuals may move, speak, think, act, and live in whatever manner they please without fear of legal or (unrelated) physical repercussions, either from other individuals or from the state. However, I don't believe that freedom should be absolute. Reasonable provisions must exist to ensure that the choices of one individual do not infringe upon the liberties of another. Additionally, no individual can be free from the responsibility of his or her choices, or from the natural and social consequences that will inevitably occur as a result of certain choices.

With respect to the definition of 'wiki', this term seems far less subjective than the others. "A website developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content" (pulled from Google) pretty much sums up my understanding of it.

In order for a service to be considered 'open', it should satisfy the previously stated conditions, but also moderate/annotate (not censor) content in an objective fashion such that appropriate context is provided, suspected bias is clearly labelled, sources are cited, and fact and opinion (plus everything in between) are readily distinguishable from one another. Such a service should be available to everyone. Wiki format is an excellent way for those who seek to offer an 'open' service which promotes balanced and multimodal perception to organize itself.

May 24 2013:
interesting questions. I would say: Openness would be anything that allows inflow and outflow - both in the physical world and the personal one. Free in freedom would be unobstructed self-determination. Wiki would be collaborative documentation. Open-service would have conditions of inflow and outflow between users and suppliers for ultimate task accomplishment.

May 24 2013:
Thanks for your interesting answer. What is your opinion on the conditions of the inflow and outflow them selves? Can openness have a filter so its inflow and outflow follows some conditions and rules?

May 24 2013:
Hi there and thank you. I answered the questions very fundamentally. So, i would offer that 'conditions' would be arbitrary and would limit the inferred 'unlimited' parameters of 'openness' and 'free'. If there were 'conditions', then the object would only be partially opened and partially free.

Jun 7 2013:
Thanks for answering.
I agree with you.
Can you tell me your opinion towards these questions?
"-How do you define wiki?
-And What are the conditions that a service should provide so that this service considered an open service?"

-“I define openness and freedom, as being able to share our stories and information with each other around the world”

-“Openness would be anything that allows inflow and outflow - both in the physical world and the personal one.”

-“i would offer that 'conditions' would be arbitrary and would limit the inferred 'unlimited' parameters of 'openness' and 'free'. If there were 'conditions', then the object would only be partially opened and partially free."

-“how much openness is reasonable? For instance, if being open might get someone killed, it might be unreasonable to be open. But openness also stimulates creativity, so a large amount of openness is desirable. One must balance the different factors and be reasonable. The same for freedom, a reasonable amount of freedom."

“I would define openness as the ability to have opinions challenged and other viewpoints presented."

“The gift of Tolerance.”

____________________
Freedom:

“Ability to pursue goals without too onerousness of barriers”

“I feel our freedom also should have the ability to stand against or voice our views against tyranny . I mean agreeing to disagree is also part of it."

“Free in freedom would be unobstructed self-determination."

“Free as in freedom would mean to not have unreasonable constraints placed on your lifestyle and it comes with responsibility to the society in which you choose to live."

May 25 2013:
To be able to disagree in a civil manner (without insulting eachother), and sort out your differences. In other words to "agree to disagree". It's always nice if one side has the humility (and the courage) to admit it's wrong. (Yet this isn't necessarily required!)
Regards,
Bernard.

Comment deleted

May 24 2013:
Thanks for your complete answer.
How would one identify the balanced point of view of on information?
And I will be glad to know your opinion on others opinions in this conversation if you're up to it :)

Comment deleted

May 24 2013:
So you believe that only with collaboration of two sides of a believe balance is achievable. What would be the solution for one that it's other side is not present to share it's ideas and opinions?

Comment deleted

May 26 2013:
Thanks a lot LaMar for the time you put in to answer me :)
I don't agree or disagree as i'm just trying to know more of a group opinions on the matter that they are specialized in. But i can say i understand your point.

Any way, I'm really glad that you joined this conversation and i hope to see more of your opinions :) Thanks :)

May 24 2013:
The first two I think you always have to have a standard of reasonableness. In other words, how much openness is reasonable? For instance, if being open might get someone killed, it might be unreasonable to be open. But openness also stimulates creativity, so a large amount of openness is desirable. One must balance the different factors and be reasonable. The same for freedom, a reasonable amount of freedom. Wiki I don't know, can you define?

May 24 2013:
That was a really interesting answer. I'm confused, Are you referring that the radical openness is the problem itself, or the users use of that data would be the problem from your perspective?

I define wiki as a collaborative work of a team from different points of view and different cultures that which provides an ultimate product that would be respond to the need of all, or at least as near as it can get. :)

May 24 2013:
Well, personally, AmirHossein, I like to be as open as possible without taking too big of risks. For example, here in the United States we are encouraged not to tell people our Social Security number, which is a number every citizen has for identification and to allow them to participate in government programs. So I will be very open if someone asks me a question, but I would not for example tell them my Social Security number.

Perhaps when it comes to openness, we should ask ourselves why the other person wants to know, is it for a positive reason that will make things better for one or more people, or is there a strong chance they will hurt someone with it?

May 24 2013:
So if i understood right, You believe that the problem comes from the users of that open data.
What i really like to know is that have you ever tried to trust an stranger (small matters counts as well) and he/she betrayed your trust? Or on the effect of warnings of social medias, You are alerted to not to trust strange request by default?
I find that social medias exaggerate every thing; And i find my society very suspicious and scary. But after i noticed my source of this kind of thinking, I started to trust others. a little bit more every day. Of course there was some problems and some betrayed my trust. But when you put that side by side to the big circle of trust and communications that i've achieved to own, there is no comparison.
From my believe people are more capable of trust then advertised.
What do you think? :)

May 24 2013:
It's going to happen. But the real question is when and how many people are going to be sacrificed to reach this destination
Iranians crave for the communication, audience, freedom and openness. We are having one of the most expensive internet connection in the world. And we are not able to access higher then 128kbit internet connection legally for a normal user and 512kbit for a university student user. And even then you will face a massive internet filtering (almost 98% of well known websites and 75% of other websites) and a low quality internet connection (compare to the real 128kbit that we should have!!!). But we reach anyway. Because we want to be heard. We want to say that "We, people of Iran, Wants peace.". There is a version of wikipedia in persian that we made it to 200,000 articles. But after defeating the wall of filtering that our government put on our way, We face some things like this: http://i44.tinypic.com/feggv5.png That will devastate us.
I've got some posts on my English blog that i wrote on this topic: http://amirlifestyle.blogspot.com/
Specifically this post: amirlifestyle.blogspot.com/2012/08/when-doors-of-open-world-are-closed-to.html
If you are interested you might find them interesting :)

May 24 2013:
actually me and many more Iranians (specially the young generation), Are trying to give back the culture we had. In last decades (and century) we lost our culture due the historic events in the middle east.
The thing you've heard... I'm not sure if i understood it right, But Baha'is are one of the most oppressed groups in Iran. But they are just on the top of the list. They are worst, the rest is bad.
I'm choosing to stay, because of many reasons. But on the top of my list:
1. Iran is changing. Very fast actually. As i'm trying to play my role in this change, I hope to see an open, free Iran on my life time and hopefully before i roll out the possibility of having a child.
2. Immigrated people are on the worst conditions you may believe. I cannot afford to loos my time washing dishes on united state, When i can be an architect, Have a good life and beside it completing my researches.
If i immigrate in this situation, In the best conditions, It will be for my child and It will not provide myself any good.
I hope i'd answered your question :) But for the sake of topic and my own safety i will be happy to continue this conversation, in a more private way (maybe like email).

May 24 2013:
Dear AmirHossein,
Thank you for sharing part of your story. I define openness and freedom, as being able to share our stories and information with each other around the world, as you do, to a certain extent here.

I join Pat and Salim, and I'm sure many other people, in wishing and believing that someday, you will have total freedom and peace.

Welcome to TED, and I sincerely hope you will continue to participate in conversations:>)

May 24 2013:
Thanks Colleen for your great wishes and your warm welcome. I'm a TED fan for quit a long time. But not much of an conversation joiner as i preferred listening for a while. :) Thanks a lot :)
What are your opinions on the meaning of wiki?
And what you will define as an open product and open service?

While I agree with Colleen's wisdom about these, but I feel our freedom also should have the ability to stand against or voice our views against tyranny . I mean agreeing to disagree is also part of it.

I see "wiki" is a one stop repository of data and information, which need to be cross checked a lot to get a better understanding of the whole matter. Wiki definitely has got the individual bias of the person or group who has been compiling it.Any data or information seldom gives any idea of something if one can't find the story or insight behind the data or information.

For quick reference I do use wiki , but before drawing any conclusion I try to check other sources.Have a good day :)

May 25 2013:
Since you asked AmirHossein....yes, I agree with Salim's additions..."our freedom also should have the ability to stand against or voice our views against tyranny", and the freedom to disagree.

This complicates the question and answer, because tyranny usually involves absolute control and oppression, which probably would mean that freedoms are limited.

So, while I agree that we "should" have the freedom to stand against tyranny, we may not, in reality, have that freedom. That does not mean that we cannot take a stand.

May 26 2013:
Now i understand that the question marks are accidental (?) . But I was really confused before this.
I understand what you are saying. And the answer to your question... Actually that's my dilemma. I'm believing in anarchy. Not the bombing stupids that use anarchy as an excuse. No. The civil radical-freedom anarchy. But what i can't solve is how without a taking someone freedom can we protect another person's freedom when situations like what Salim said is coming up.

May 26 2013:
Hi Amir
I feel absoluteness of freedom is an utopia.
Freedom is relative to time , space and also the state of consciousness etc.
Say , what can be considered as freedom at one place may be considered as anarchy in some other place. Similarly in the same place in the horizon of time it can be different at different time.

"Freedom to take others freedom" may sound very oppressive.....but what if say a Killer is thinking it's his/her freedom to kill anyone at his will , to restrict that freedom is a must for the benefit of humanity.

May 26 2013:
Salim, I'm really happy that you feel freedom in Utopia. Not comparing, But just pointing out, Even in my country some people feel freedom. They don't just like doing things against the rules here. Just pointing out.
And didn't understand your meaning by using anarchy. Do you referring to the social system, or chaos?

Colleen, You point out a great thing (at least for me), Some times it's the choice between bad and worst. But i have to say, the whole point of radical freedom is that no person knows itself as higher thinker then others. Even a philosopher to a killer. Other then that, We just eliminated a group of people from their existence in our considerations. And i don't think we have the right to do that. What do you think?

May 26 2013:
Hi Amir
Sorry for being vague in my post. Let me clarify with example what I meant by " anarchy" .
For sometime I was in Middle East for professional reason. One afternoon I was having lunch in one of the near by fast food shop to have a quick lunch. It was hot sunny summer day with 50+ degree centigrade outside . As I was having my lunch saw a lady fully covered in Black Abaya quickly entered and ordered few lunch packs as take away. She was in real hurry , was thinking may be her car is waiting outside that's why she was hurrying. The person behind the counter also served her with unusual speed.

After finishing my lunch as I came out of the shop , found 4 ladies struggling to have their lunches which one of them bought those from the shop. They are struggling to have it because their Abaya , they were struggling because of the heat outside. Being naive to the country I asked one of my colleague why these ladies didn't have lunch inside the shop?

Answer was ladies are not allowed to enter any shop where there is no separate section for ladies. In any other country it is usual freedom for a lady to have her lunch comfortably inside shop but in that particular place that kind of behavior of lady will be considered severely punishable anarchic behavior.

Actually entering that shop by that lady was also an anarchy to their social and country standard. Not sure what was thought of that lady while decided to enter that shop even , guess her personal belief told her that its her freedom to buy food while she is hungry from a shop at her convenience,but rest she didn't dare to implement.

This is how our individual concept freedom get chained with societal / cultural concept of freedom.

May 26 2013:
I see.
We don't have that kind of restriction on our females in iran (still pretty restricted sadly); So i'm pretty surprised by your story.
Anyhow thanks for explaining :)
So from my interpretation, what you mean by anarchy is a breaking the laws of a culture/government but for doing a thing that is one consider to be a human right. (sorry if i'm making no sense). In other word Anarchy is good kind of breaking the rules. Am i understanding that right? or am i wrong?

In Iran, about 35 years ago, freedom was one of things that people wanted in that time during the revolution. It's really interesting how that did end up. But from my understanding, the person who was the leader to the revolution, His meaning to freedom was about freedom to edit and censor the people of his opposite side. And many people knowingly followed him, and most of that time's revolutionaries that saw "freedom" in his goals followed him, not knowing that his definition of freedom was something completely different.
So i understand what you say by chaining to societal/ cultural concept of freedom.
Thanks :)

"1 hour ago: Now i understand that the question marks are accidental (?) . But I was really confused before this.
I understand what you are saying. And the answer to your question... Actually that's my dilemma. I'm believing in anarchy. Not the bombing stupids that use anarchy as an excuse. No. The civil radical-freedom anarchy. But what i can't solve is how without a taking someone freedom can we protect another person's freedom when situations like what Salim said is coming up."

My question marks are NOT accidental. They ask a question....(what do you think?) I am exploring your topic with you and I do not have all the answers....I am offering some ideas, and anticipating your thoughts, feelings, ideas:>)

Perhaps the type of anarchy you seek is defined as: "a utopian society made up of individuals who have no government and who enjoy complete freedom"

The challenge, is that to reach that type of anarchy, there has to be an overthrow of the government and those that are in power? It may be the transition that is problematic?

Is that what you mean when you say...
"Some times it's the choice between bad and worst. But i have to say, the whole point of radical freedom is that no person knows itself as higher thinker then others.... We just eliminated a group of people from their existence in our considerations. And i don't think we have the right to do that".

That is an excellect question Amir....do we have the right to "eliminate" some people to create a better situation for the masses of people? I would say no, and I would prefer to find a different solution, other than elimination.

May 26 2013:
I found something in my early years studying the reasons of why we are here and why for example Utopian are there. (I mean from reaching freedom) Sadly the answer to that was people was seeking for this kind of dictatorship knowingly or not. I'm not talking about the absolute 100%. But still a considerable share of people. So you can do as much as you want revolutions, But you will not reach freedom, As long as people are not as free minded and liberal; as governments and dictators come from this people. So it's a harder challenge. The transition you are talking about is not an political transition, It's a social and cultural transition. Imagine how hard that is! Plus overthrowing is not the solution. We have to "consider".

And i agree with your no to "eliminate" perspective. But how? To eliminate elimination, we have to offer a better solution. Do you think it worth making another conversation in TEDconv?

If it is to practice Sharia law aren't the people of Iran already free?

One of the problems in the U.S. is people do not see the need for change as they are happy with their current situation. In order to create the desire for change you can easily be seen as a subversive. In your case that could dangerous. Which I imagine is the reason the Baha'i are so persecuted?

The other thing to look at is economic freedom. This vehicle transformed the most oppressive country in the world, using capital punishment as a metric. It would seem to me this is something to consider?

May 27 2013:
The freedom is to do any thing you will. If it's condition, Well prisoners can be consider free people. They are free to do any thing they want except the things they told not to in their cells.
Baha'is as far as i know are harmless people. But as a dictatorship country always needs an enemy to fool their people to pretend they are saving them, Baha'is are the the chosen victims sadly.

As for the second question, I didn't understand what are you saying. May you rephrase that please?

May 28 2013:
Okay, You are pointing to a good question. But what i'm after is a parametric formula for definition of freedom and openness. I don't want get subjective. Being subjective and saying, "I want freedom in choosing to suicide" and then answering:"Well, It's your life, here is your freedom." That will solve one problem very quickly. But when it comes to other restrictions, Then we face a problem.
Basically What i'm after is a universal perspective towards freedom and openness.

PS. I know some baha'is and they are great people. Sadly they don't even have access to academic higher graduations. But as i know baha'is on other countries have good life. Two of the most inspiring architectures of Iran were baha'is!

I disagree, if you are saying I want freedom to do everything that is the same as I don't want freedom to do anything. Do you see this?

Freedom requires a rule of law if everyone want sharia law then you are good to go in that department.

Is there private property in Iran?

Is there freedom to compete in the market place or is there a monopoly?

Is there much consumption in the marketplace in other words is there much of a marketplace? Especially regarding women. If you took women consumers out of the U.S. market place the economy would have the worst crash ever.

Is there freedom to use technology?

Is there freedom to use modern medicine?

These things might not fly in the face of the government as with the Baha'i?